Global Warming - Fact or Fiction ?

“The attempt of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral.” Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London

“Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.” L.A. Times 1929

The Sun, Water vapor, Earth's orbit, Volcanoes, Interstellar clouds, Cosmic rays, Tectonic plates, Land use, CO2, Sunspots, Gravitational pulls, Ocean currents and Solar flares. Imagine each one of these as a 100,000 piece puzzle and mix them all together. Now randomly take out 1/4 of all the pieces and try to put it together. This represents our world and its environment.

Global Warming Lies was created because when you do an internet search on global warming 99% of what you find is how the Earth is doomed and we are all going to drown from global warming. This isn't the case, in fact most climatologists will tell you differently. Global Warming Lies is an attempt to break down the science into every day language, provide facts, use logic and common sense instead of the "You're going to die" method.

Read more and make up your own mind at http://www.globalwarminglies.com/index.html

Read more...

The Sun's Effect

The climate is an advanced, mysterious system that is still beyond human understanding. It is preposterous for anyone to claim they understand exactly how it all fits together. Cloud coverage, greenhouse gases, the sun, and ocean tides all play a part in the overall effect of temperature on this planet. For this reason, we see so many hair brain conclusions.

Nevertheless, nobody with a sound mind can deny the effect the sun has on this planet. It is the main source of energy. When that "power planet" goes out, this orb will be just a lifeless, frozen rock traveling through space. Without the sun's power, life cannot exist. It is that simple.

That is what gets me intrigued by the global warming alarmists. All of their "evidence" discounts the presence of the sun. How can this realistically be? Nobody of sound mind will discount this main component of life in their research. Thus, I assert the global warming alarmists are not of sound mind.

Reports out of NASA conclude that 2008 was had one of the most days without any sunspots in the last 100 years. As of September 27th, we witnessed 200 days without a single sunspot. (read article here). By December 3rd, this total reached 241 days (read here). Quite simply, the sun is not providing the same solar activity as it did a few years ago.

Using analysis of past events, not computer models, researchers found that each decrease in sunspot activity led to cooler temperatures. By the same token, a rise in this activity results in a rise in temperature. Logic tells me this is sensible since the sun is the main generator of power for the planet.

So where does that leave us? There seems to be a pattern emerging. 2008 was not the only year will slower sunspot activity in recent years. If you notice from the first chart, 2007 also managed to pass 150 days without sunspot activity. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2009.

Nevertheless, should this trend continue as many believe, we can say that there will be a cooling effect on the planet. The record cold temperatures of this past winter will not be oddities. Rather, they will be a part of a larger cooling trend for the next couple of decades. That will put an end to the global warming hysteria.

Read more...

Up Side Of Global Warming

There is always an up side to everything

Read more...

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17^th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO₂, CH₄, Ozone and N₂O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO₂ constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO₂ rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

Source: Friends of Science website.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nicholas Stern: Spend billions on green investments now to reverse economic downturn and halt climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• The Hockey Stick Hoax (powerlineblog.com)

Read more...

Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up

The measures being proposed to meet what President Obama last week called the need to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" threaten to land us with the most colossal bill mankind has ever faced. It might therefore seem peculiarly important that we can trust the science on which all the alarm over global warming is based, But nothing has been more disconcerting in this respect than the methods used by promoters of the warming cause over the years to plug some of the glaring holes in their scientific argument.

Another example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.

However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average.

Read the whole article here and then ask the questions, as the UK shivers in one of the worst winters in over 20 years and temperatures across America are colder than they have ever been * see snow in Las Vegas * and fluctuating wildly, it seems that the results are being 'doctored' to suit the cause, or in this case the funding.

Read more...

N I Environment Minister, bans global warming propaganda

More and more people are questioning the so called 'evidence' of Global Warming, the facts and figures do not make sense, the research is flawed, the reasoning is not consistant and finally the questions that are in the forefron of peoples minds are being asked, but at what cost ?

It seems that Northern Ireland's Environment Minister is about to find that out, after blocking a government "information" initiative on climate change, denouncing it as part of an "insidious propaganda campaign", there are calls for his dismissal. It seems that the disciples of global warming are squealing like stuck pigs, they don't want too many people to start questioning and doubting, their funding will fall if too many questions are raised

Read the whole article here and then ask the questons, its your money being wasted and in todays economic climate every penny counts, and in this case, every million counts

Read more...

The History of Man-Made Global Warming

Many sensible people are understanding that global warming is a myth. With each record setting temperature drop, we are seeing this movement for exactly what it is: a quest for funding in an effort to promote "one government". I am not going to argue that case at this moment. However, here is an excellent article outlining the history of the global warming movement. Read this to find where Al Gore got his start.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

By the way, John Coleman is one of the main founders in the Weather Channel.

Read more...

Irony for Gore

Al Gore is scheduled in front of John Kerry's committee in the Senate on Wednesday in Washington, DC. The irony of the situation is that there is a winter storm watch for the DC area with snow and possible ice accumulation. (see here)

Of course, the global warming alarmists say that the extreme winter we are experiencing is due to man-made global warming. Well, a couple more years of climate like this and we will uncover this hoax for what it is.

Next up, the search for Santa Claus.

Read more...

Global Warming Well

Read more...

We Are Entering An Ice Age

Are you kidding me? How can this be when the "consensus" is that we are going to be destroyed by global warming? The answer is that obviously the consensus might be lacking a few people. Of course, this means that there is no consensus but that is another dispute.

Plainly, we are being lied to. Those in power are using fear to promote their agenda to eliminate our present way of life while implementing costly solutions where there is no problem. Following this idea is costing us billions, if not trillions.

Researchers are concluding that we are seeing signs that the world is entering a cooling period. Over the last few weeks, I wrote about some of this research. Now, we are seeing claims that we are closing in on another Ice Age. Here is an article that appears in Pravda showing how the climate is involved in a trend that lasts thousands of years.

The problem with the alarmists claims is that they like to take 10 or 20 year spans. When dealing with the Earth, we need to look at things in intervals of 10,000 years or more. This idea that man is causing the warming of the planet is becoming more ridiculous by the day. Each day we see another record low set somewhere in the world. As I write this, parts of Alaska is dealing with -75 degrees. Does this sound like a product of global warming? (I am going to ignore the absurd and illogical claim that record low temperatures are a result of global warming)

We saw the extinction of the dinosaurs during the last Ice Age. Since that time, the planet got warmer. There were fluctuations up and down over different intervals. Nevertheless, the planet is warmer than it was 200,000 years ago. In addition, we are told there is another ice age coming. This means that there will be a time when the planet gets remarkably colder. Hopefully, for those of us here, it won't be for thousands of years.

The bottom line is that another "mini-ice age" similar to what was experienced a couple hundred years ago is very likely. We are now seeing temperatures that date back to the late 1800s. Give this another couple of years, and it is highly possible that we will feel effects similar to the 1700s in terms of the temperature. Remember this the next time one of the political leaders warns of the dangers of global warming. Now, you will know for a fact they are lying through their teeth.

Read more...

Global Warming: Political Cause

The only consensus with the Global Warming debate is that the science seems to have left the house. This issue is now a matter of politics as opposed to a forum for scientific debate. Recently, I came across an article that verified my suspicions about this subject.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a long time proponent of man-made global warming. He was one of the first scientists to appear before Congress, doing so in 1988. At that time, he alerted them of the dire nature of the impending warming. He was basing his conclusions on the 10 year swing from the late 70s towards a warming. Remember, we experienced a cooling trend from the mid 1940's through up until that time. His analysis was certainly heard by a sitting Senator, Al Gore.

Hansen's credentials would make you believe he is someone to listen to. He has a high powered position (warning sign #1) with the government that allows his access to all the latest data collection devices known to man. However, we find that his conclusions are marred by his associations. In the past I wrote that it is not in the American Cancer Institute's best interest to cure cancer. Well, it is not in Hansen's interest to correctly analyze the data. This article sums up what many have long believed.

I find the easiest way to get to the truth is to follow the money. This usually reveals which "side someone's bread is buttered on". For Hansen, it is a liberal agenda that is pushing his results. How is that so? Because they are the ones lining his pockets with millions of dollars. To me, this proves a lack of neutrality in this matter.

Notice who his supporters are: George Soros who provided him with $720,000 for legal and marketing advice; Teresa Heinz Kerry, with of noted liberal John Kerry, who's foundation awarded Hansen $250,00 and let him split a $1 million prize. Right there is a cool (not warm) $1.5 million to this one individual. Do you think he is going to give up this gravy train by asserting that the data now says something different? Obviously not.

One of the major arguments that man-made global warming advocates levy against those who claim proof dispelling this idea is that their conclusions are biased based upon funding. We often hear how the oil companies are paying for these "scientific" studies the same way the tobacco industry paid for studies concluding that smoking was not hazardous to one's health.

This seems like a valid argument. However, further research reveals that ExxonMobil paid $18 million in climate change studies over a period covering 1997-2996. That averages out to under $2 million spent per year to all those doing research. Yet, Hansen received almost that same amount from 3 sources. Obviously, if the research is flawed by those who are funded by the oil companies, then Hansen's conclusions are fabrications also since he is paid by liberal organizations seeking to promote their agenda. This is just one more instance where the American people are being misled by individuals in the government.

Therefore, the next time you hear someone spewing their nonsense about the consensus on man-made global warming, remember the flaw in their argument. And, bet the ranch that they will point to some data put out by GISS. We can now say this facet of the government is an arm for the George Soros political machine.

Read more...

Global Warming-The Pacific Might Disagree

My investigation into this interesting topic is revealing how misled we are by those in power. I find it ironic that when one begins to study a particular topic, it seems information (or disinformation) is presented at every turn. This is no exception. I just saw a show on the history channel which goes contrary to much of what is being presented of late. While I will admit not knowing how old the program was, it certainly follows the argument that there is "consensus" over the global warming debate. My research is showing me this is far from true. If anything, the debate is only heating up.

We all remember from our high school science days that the oceans have a lot to do with the weather we experience. These bodies of water cover 75% of the Earth's surface. They have the ability to create, destroy, spawn tornadoes, and have an effect on hurricanes. What I learned is they also release and capture enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. To say that it is an important component in the climate we experience is an understatement.

Recently, Don Easterbrook, professor at Western Washington University, stated that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode, virtually ensuring us of 20-30 years of global cooling. This announcement was made by NASA and is right on schedule with past PDO changes. In addition, this is not an oddity that masks the global warming trend. (read the full article and get the links here)

So, what the heck does this all mean? And how come this announcement was not all over the front page of the major publications? You would think that a shift in climate, considering all the attention it received, would be big news. Yet, nobody is reporting this. Why not?

This tells me we have moved beyond a question of science to one that is now political. Nevertheless, as shown by the NASA research, the largest body of water is now in a cooling mode. I would say this would have a major impact on the climate.

Regardless, there is historical evidence that the PDO establishes the pattern of warming and cooling of the planet. The first part of last century saw a warming until the mid 40s which coincided with a warming of the Pacific. Then, it switched to cool and ended around the time of the Newsweek cover titled "Global Cooling". And, since that time, we were in a warming period until the end of the last century. Again, it should be no surprise that we saw a leveling of the temperature since 1998 with a decrease in the last 2 years.

According to Professor Easterbrook, we will see this trend continue until the middle of this century. This is in opposition to all the global warming theories that exist. Al Gore tells us the consensus is in. Perhaps he ought to check with the Pacific first. It seems that one is going astray.

Read more...

How is this so Al Gore?

Where is Al Gore to answer this for us? He is the self-appointed global warming expert and now it seems one of the foundations for that argument is fanishing. The alarmists like to point to the disappearing sea ice as proof that global warming is occurring. Oops. Evidently, nature did not follow the argument deciding to increase the sea ice this year. In fact, it is now at the same level it was in 1979.

This all leads me to believe that we are once again being lied to by those in power. Al Gore, ex of the Senate and the Clinton administration, excelled as a politician. Therefore, he is a professional liar. To compound the issue, my research tells me that he pocketed at least $100 million off this hoax. Obviously, he has incentive to keep it going.

Satellite studies show that the recent expansion during the last quarter of 2008 in the sea ice left it at a comparable level to the end of 1979. (read here for full article). According to the story, sea ice is a better indicator of the warming/cooling trend than the anchored ice sheets since it is transient, thus responds faster to change. Therefore, since the ice grew, this reflects a cooling. That is contrary to Al Gore and his cronies.

Of course, we will hear them proclaim that this is all part of it. Over the last few weeks, I really have studied all I could about this issue. While not being a scientist, I read the works of more than I can recall. At first glance there looks like equally qualified people on both sides of the issues. This statement is in direct contrast to those who support global warming. They claim there is "consensus" among all scientists. Common sense dictates this is a false claim since it is impossible to get more than 5 people to agree what type of coffee pot to buy. Consensus does not exist.

So, why are we being lied to? One word: MONEY. Global warming research is a profitable business. Trillions of dollars were spent on research, funding, and other activities to promote this concept. Sadly, from what I can tell, the science does not back up the hypothesis. Man has nothing to do with global warming.

Getting back to the article, I do find the last line interesting:

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

Here is another example where the government leaders decided to take the will into their hands over the wishes of the experts. I wonder who the people would believe: corrupt politicians or experts on polar bears. Certainly the Senators from Georgia and Florida know what is happening with the polar bear population. Perhaps it is time to delist the polar bears since the sea ice is expanding. Their home is now safe.

What do you say Al Gore?

Read more...

Global Warming Debate Over?

We all heard Al Gore spews his garbage about the science regarding man-made global warming being "beyond consensus". To him, the science is clear. The only question I have is "who are these scientists that Al Gore is talking to?". It seems that his surveys were conducted with politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and old hippies. The true "scientists" are having a dispute about the validity of the global warming theory.

Christopher Booker writes in the Telegraph that 2008 witnessed the end of the debate over this subject (here). It seems that the true science is revealing that the Earth entered a cooling period. The absurd claims that the "alarmists" made regarding global warming simply are incorrect. This became a political issue more than a scientific issue of the past few decades. Science shows that the planet naturally goes through cycles and this time period is no different.

We saw no climate change from 1997-2007 when we witnessed a cooling period. This erased any gains in planetary temperature since the end of the 1800s (about 7 degree C). The planet is now the same as it was 110 years ago. At the same time, the polar ice caps recouped most of the mass lost during the warming period of the last 30 years. Since 2006, a mass the size of Texas was added to these sensational sights. Finally, the Pacific Ocean has now entered it cooling phase which oceanologists have shown to trend in 25-30 year time frames. It just so happens that we are ending a warming phase that started in the mid 1970s.

So where does this leave us? We are stuck with a President and political leaders who are 100% behind this myth. They are ready to commit billions to fighting something that does not exist. In fact, the trend is the opposite direction. People are starving and Obama wants to put a "cap and trade" on everything. What a jackass!!! The politics continue to screw the American people who are stuck footing the bill for this.

Money is driving this entire venture. In the next year, the UN will spend over $40 billion on global warming related programs and research. This means a lot of people are being funded by this farce. Do you think they are going to disprove something that provides their paycheck? Not likely. Have you ever wondered why the American Cancer Society never cured cancer despite millions of dollars spent on research? Because it is not in their best interest.

We are going to see the same garbage out of the global alarmist that we witnessed the last few years. Al Gore will stand up and tell us how wrong we are to use regular light bulbs while he flies around on a private jet. Our government, and those around the world, are going to spend billions in an exercise that amounts to trying to "prove Santa Clause". However, we will see more science revealing exactly how inaccurate the alarmists are.

The only thing I can say is to bring a sweater: the next few decades are going to get colder.

Read more...

Tobacco Like Hoax

In my last post, I opened up the can of worms about the global warming debate (yes contrary to what you heard there is still a debate). Therefore, I will go on this tangent a while and give the Federal government a break for a while. Rest easy, I will hammer them if anything important arises. In the meantime, this subject will go nicely with Christmas.

I came across this article which talked about the money ExxonMobil paid to fund research to study Global Cooling. The idea is that there is a tobacco-like campaign of disinformation put forth by the oil companies to discredit the science showing the merits of man-made global warming. Simply, the accusation is that ExxonMobil is paying for it's "scientists" to research a predetermined conclusion. The tobacco companies pulled this stunt for decades with false reports of "scientific study" which proved that smoking was not bad for your health. Of course, this is untrue.

So, according to the accusations, the oil companies are pulling the same stunt. Or are they? On the surface this argument makes sense. However, further insight reveals that perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.

Here is an article with a link to the report:

http://ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

This is the part of that article that struck me as odd.

"According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

Does this make sense to anyone else? According to the accusations, the revelation of man-made global warming as a result of emissions of carbon dioxide is attacking the lifeline of the oil companies. With this knowledge, legislature needs to follow which will create more friendly alternatives to the planet. This means that these companies are literally fighting for their survival.

This is where the argument goes awry: don't you think that if a company was faced with it's extinction, it would throw all resources at it. I mean, wouldn't you commit all your earnings for a year to save the company and ensure future operations? Most would do that. However, ExxonMobil committed $16 million over 8 years (an average of $2 million a year). This sounds like a lot until you consider their profit last quarter was over $10 billion. Not exactly the type of numbers you would expect for a company facing its demise.

Now that we know what this oil company spent, I wanted to learn what the global warming proponents got. It seems that the US government's annual budget for global warming research is $45 billion. That is a large difference when compared to the money spent by ExxonMobil. Seems to me that a lot more people are supported by the presence of global warming than the other side. Maybe it pays better to go along with this idea.

What is interesting is that I write this while the Northeast is getting hammered with a tremendous snow storm. We saw snow in Malibu and Las Vegas yesterday. Research showed that 2007 was the coldest in the last 120 years and this year might surpass it. The article I just referenced was written in January 2007. It appears that Dr. McCarthy was right that the facts would prevail. Two years later, warming is not on everyone's mind. And, ExxonMobil is not in the fight for their lives based upon the research money they spent.

Read more...

The UN Agenda

It is obvious the United Nations has an agenda when it comes to global warming. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a change in the climate patterns, especially in the northern hemisphere. Nevertheless, this did little to silence the global warming alarmists. They are just as persistent even when facing a reality which differs greatly from their own.

The Science and Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization is dedicated to trying to clear up the confusion regarding climate change. One of the main sources of this is the misleading by the United Nations, specifically, the IPCC.

According to the SPPI, the IPCC has under-reported the global cooling of the last 10 years. This means that their models are off versus what really is occurring. The admitting of a cooling means that the overall warming realized in this century will be less than projected. This removes the alarming effect that is crucial for global warming funding. (read article here).

The truth of the matter is that the Earth's climate is a wild and varied situation. There are many factors which go into it. At the same time, there appears to be a "regulating" mechanism which allows the planet to adjust to movements in temperature. This natural occurance would explain why we see pattern variations over time. When the planet gets too warm, clouds from water evaporation form, thus cooling the planet.

"Consensus" among scientists rarely takes place. I am always leery when someone proclaims there is consensus, especially when that someone is a politically motivated organization.

Read more...

Global Warming?

Has anyone else noticed the temperatures recently? Yesterday, Las Vegas got snow. This is a city that is in the middle of the desert. And it got snow. Malibu got snow also. For those of you who do not own a globe, that is near Los Angeles. Southern California got snow? What the hell is going on here?

All across the country we are seeing conditions such as these. What makes this incredible is that we are sold a bill of goods by our politicians and the media that we are being threatened by global warming. How is this warming? To me, it is obvious that there is some cooling taking place.

This got me thinking. I am always skeptical when most of the politicians and the mainstream media agree on anything. That usually means we are in trouble. And, when I hear someone like Al Gore say "the debate is over" when it pertains to science, I really sit up and take notice. Getting scientists to agree on anything is impossible. It is like trying to get economists to see things the same way; they never will.

So, what is the truth? To be fair, I will admit that I have studied this subject in some detail. I am not a scientist nor do I profess to be. I only looked at this subject because much of what I heard defied common sense. This led me to look at this closer myself. And guess what I found. We are being misled by those in charge. Is anyone surprised?

Evidently, the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. It is a natural cycle that occurred for millions of years. Recently, we notice that the Earth is operating in 25-30 year cycles. The cycle of warming just ended and now we are seeing a period of cooling. This is why we are seeing temperatures in certain areas that haven't occurred in 100 years. Some are believing that we are at the beginnings of another "Mini Ice Age". That is a far cry from the catastrophic warming we are told to fear.

Why so much misinformation? It is simple. MONEY!!! Global Warming is a giant money maker. Everyone is funding it because it is impossible to say "no" to. All the governments around the world are buying into it as is the UN. With Obama in charge, we are now going to see the United States on board. Welcome to the party.

I will write more about this in following posts. However, one thing that is interesting is how the name of this occurrence changed the last few years. Anytime this occurs, I see some fancy shenanigans be played. This is a move the political and media establishments do to us all the time. So, I really took notice when "global warming" because "climate change". Now why do you suppose that happened?

This is meant to drive home a point of how manipulated we are by those in power. If you feel this is not a correct assessment about the global climate, I challenge you to do some research. I want you to prove where there is no debate about the direction of the Earth's temperature and the link to man causing it. Do a search on "global cooling" to see what results you get. You will find some highly qualified scientist who have researched this topic. Interestingly, they do not have the huge research grants of the warming crowd. Again, that in itself ought to make you wonder.

Follow the money if you want to get to the truth. Or if you are in Las Vegas, just look out your window.

Read more...